IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt

Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com> Thu, 09 June 2011 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F415211E8084 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxV1v6dCe0uE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6BB11E8074 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LMI001AW48VW0@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:29:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LMI006TC48V00@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:29:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from SZXEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.94) by szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:29:18 +0800
Received: from SZXEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.169]) by szxeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([169.254.34.53]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:29:19 +0800
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 02:29:18 +0000
From: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <243EA4AA-9165-4BC5-BE81-50E219A5F35E@nominum.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.70.39.133]
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com>
Message-id: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EAD39BCA@SZXEML514-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt
Thread-index: AQHMJEsx+z9Vr7dJOkyY/x4G0YREuZSvyFGAgAN0AICAARL5gA==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <20110604170424.3363.68771.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A115E3C9F15@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <BANLkTi=WiPMfR1cFmwSEehjzAWk97efBMQ@mail.gmail.com> <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A115E3C9F1B@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <9B800A80-B90E-47DF-91B7-19DECBC32A5E@nominum.com> <31D55C4D55BEED48A4459EB64567589A115E3C9F1D@BLRKECMBX02.ad.infosys.com> <243EA4AA-9165-4BC5-BE81-50E219A5F35E@nominum.com>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 02:29:41 -0000

Ted - We are not experiencing a shortage of DHCPv6 option codes,...

Supposed you're talking about the space shortage of the DHCPv4 option codes.



-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:57 AM
To: Bharat Joshi
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-08.txt

On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:13 AM, Bharat Joshi wrote:
> At present, we do not have any other use for this field. This 'type' was inspired from the previous revision of this document and we decided to keep it there thinking that more type of relay-ids may come in future.

I think the bottom line is that if you can't figure out what the type field does, you should take it out.   We are not experiencing a shortage of DHCPv6 option codes, so there's no reason to keep complexity in the spec to account for an unknown future circumstance that may or may not come to exist.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email